By Viv Forbes
Our green guards continually demand that we use less carbon fuel in order to reduce global warming. They say “the science is settled”.
If the science is settled, we do not need a costly climate-study industry of super-annuated bureaucrats and grant-addicted academics – give the staff some real work, stop the grants, switch off the computers and air conditioners, sell the coffee machines, and quietly close the doors.
If there is consensus on the dangers of man-made global warming, there should be nothing more to discuss. Why do we need to burn tanker-loads of carbon fuel sending regiments of officials, politicians and journalists to 5-star world climate conferences every few months?
If politicians were fair dinkum about reducing carbon emissions, surely they would set an example and ban all air travel by politicians and public servants. And they could reduce the consumption of transport fuels if they ceased promoting and attending circuses, games, expos and car rallies? And if livestock emissions are a real concern, surely they would replace beef and lamb on Parliamentary menus with hydroponic lettuce and bean sprouts? And to save the world, surely they would relocate to their electorates, conduct debates using tele-conferencing, sell the government limousines, hop on a bike and see first-hand the damage being done by their high-cost policies?
While they ignore their own scare-mongering, we know they are not fair dinkum.